He even mocks Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, joined by legal scholars Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, presented arguments to the Supreme Court questioning the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed recently, they argued that Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland breaches the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, contending that Smith, as a private citizen, lacks the authority to represent the federal government in court.
The brief starkly described Smith as a “naked emperor,” asserting that his appointment lacks constitutional validity, comparing his authority to individuals like Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. This filing was in response to Smith’s plea to expedite the handling of former President Donald Trump’s case involving claims of presidential immunity for actions on January 6, 2021, linked to charges initiated by Smith.
Meese emphasized the alleged “illegality” of Smith’s appointment, urging the Court to dismiss Smith’s petition for review. The crux of their argument lies in the contention that Smith’s appointment lacks the necessary statutory and constitutional foundation.
They contested the legitimacy of Garland’s appointment of Smith, highlighting that the statutes cited by Garland did not provide the authority for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen as a Special Counsel with significant criminal law enforcement powers. Meese underscored that the absence of specific statutory provisions empowering the Attorney General to appoint such a Special Counsel infringes upon the Appointments Clause.
Moreover, Meese, drawing upon constitutional principles, emphasized that the nature of the Special Counsel’s role positions it as a superior, rather than inferior officer, requiring the appointment to adhere strictly to the presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation process.
Smith, on the other hand, sought expedited consideration of Trump’s immunity claims to maintain the schedule of Trump’s trial in Washington, D.C., slated to commence on March 4, emphasizing the urgency of the matter.
Meese’s contentions, framed within constitutional and statutory interpretations, challenge the legality of Smith’s appointment and its implications in Trump’s case, elevating the significance of the Appointments Clause in executive appointments to crucial law enforcement positions.
